Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

[Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>]

Agreed as to MPEG rubberstamping VP8, the Google proposal circulated to 
this list didn't recommend that either, rather that it be adopted as 
reference model and advanced to working draft.

Nonetheless, the submission of VP8 to ISO/MPEG as a proof-point for MTI 
in IETF is right on slide 3.

And the supporting doc says Google expects ISO to execute its ordinary 
process for resolution of IPR issues.

Rob

On 3/14/2013 12:08 PM, Wang, Ye-Kui wrote:
>
> Surely it is not.
>
> Note that the context here is on the MTI codec discussion in IETF, not 
> at all the context the POSSIBLE standardization of VP8 in MPEG (which, 
> if to happen, would most likely be subject to more development taking 
> the current VP8 as the basis rather than rubberstamping as is).
>
> BR, YK
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Rob Glidden
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:48 AM
> *To:* Wang, Ye-Kui; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot
>
> Sure it is, there's an open MPEG meeting resolution on the MPEG VP8 
> proposal to that effect, apparently even National Body comment.
>
> Rob
>
> On 3/13/2013 9:36 PM, Wang, Ye-Kui wrote:
>
>     Sure - but that is clearly not the context here.
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>     On Mar 13, 2013, at 17:24, "Gerard Fernando"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Hello YK,
>
>         The disclosure process in MPEG is not based on who you are, or
>         on your Business model.
>
>         Kind regards
>
>         Gerard
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         *From:*"Wang, Ye-Kui" <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *To:* Stockhammer Thomas <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bo Burman
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Cc:* "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 10:40
>         *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday
>         agenda slot
>
>
>         > >  How many others who did not respond to MPEG LA's call but
>         have IPR
>         > > are
>         > there?
>         >
>         > [TS]  Just one more hypothesis: If I would have, what would
>         be my
>         > obligation/motivation to do so now?
>
>         Speaking of the motivation part; that would depend on who YOU
>         are and what kind of business model or plan YOU have in mind.
>
>         BR, YK
>
>         > -----Original Message-----
>         > From: [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
>         > Of Stockhammer Thomas
>         > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:53 AM
>         > To: Bo Burman
>         > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday
>         agenda slot
>         >
>         >
>         > >  How many others who did not respond to MPEG LA's call but
>         have IPR are
>         > there?
>         >
>         > [TS]  Just one more hypothesis: If I would have, what would
>         be my
>         > obligation/motivation to do so now?
>         >
>         > >>>
>         > >>> We appreciate the need to have time to evaluate the
>         specific words
>         > >>> of the license statements that are forthcoming, and the
>         need for the
>         > >>> people who haven't made their IPR declarations over the
>         last couple
>         > >>> of years of discussion to do so within the next couple
>         of weeks -
>         > >>> but we do think that it is important to use the face to
>         face time
>         > >>> that we have here in Orlando to lay to rest any *other*
>         issues than
>         > >>> the licensing terms and other issues derived from Google's
>         > announcement.
>         > >>
>         > >> I am not sure we can have a reasoned consideration of
>         'other issues
>         > derived'
>         > >> at such short notice.
>         > >>
>         > >> Look, I'd like our discussions and decisions to be
>         informed and
>         > >> considered, and there simply isn't time for either.
>         > >>
>         > >>>
>         > >>> Harald
>         > >>>
>         > >>> _______________________________________________
>         > >>> rtcweb mailing list
>         > >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>         > >>
>         > >> David Singer
>         > >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>         > >>
>         > >> _______________________________________________
>         > >> rtcweb mailing list
>         > >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>         > >
>         >
>         > ---
>         > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]> || phone +49
>         > 89 978980 02 || cell [phone] ||
>         http://www.nomor-research.com <http://www.nomor-research.com/>
>         > Nomor Research GmbH  -  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München -
>         Registergericht:
>         > München, HRB 165856 - Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 -
>         Geschäftsführer:
>         > Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering.
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > rtcweb mailing list
>         > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     rtcweb mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>